Laserfiche WebLink
LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MEETING <br />MAY 5, 1981 <br />-2- <br />Novak does not feel the City should be in the business of spending <br />$150,000 for a new building. Future economics may deem expansion <br />unfeasible and rental a necessity. She anticipated may problems <br />with this large expenditure. She also opposed selling the present <br />building and diminishing the area and access for the Fire Hall. <br />Novak also expressed concern that the sewer/septic system at the <br />present office building may pose limitations on the type of use <br />in that building. She favors remodeling the present office building, <br />in a less extensive manner, to meet the minimum needs. <br />Morgan agreed that $150,000 is a major concern. He opposes the <br />'Amended to purchase of additional land; but,* ck�as x�c�t f Lit s f_. _;�ihLe to <br />ead"but, remodel the present office or the Fire Hall. He favors the land- <br />.ccepted fill site as the most feasible alternative. <br />ether peoples recommendation that it is not feasible to..." <br />5/19/81 Motion failed 2-3. Eder, Novak and Fraser opposed. <br />Eder moved, seconded by Fraser, to pursue the offer of the Brookfield <br />Company and locate the office building in the Brookman Addition, <br />provided that the financial terms are satisfactory. Motion failed <br />3-2. Morgan, Mottaz, and Novak opposed. <br />mended Mia:t�t-a-z--amk-sr�e-&-t-drat-ito ra-pTr-s- l -a-matron-- PartYrer <br />5/19/81 dis-ct s-s-ic*1Twas-rle-laa7erl-nt-i7r-rate- =-tke­-mmae-tizrg-- Fras-er-recmn- <br />mend�-Hrzr&-l-im - $trtldi7 vmnrbL-fee -retaa u act±ve--1Fkre-Oo=crkh-agreed. <br />OLD BUSINESS: <br />A. Audit Report - Administrator Whittaker recommended that the <br />auditor, Moen & Pentilla, prepare the annual financial statement. <br />This was not included in their contract. <br />Mottaz moved, seconded by Morgan, to accept the Administrator's <br />recommendation and authorize Moen & Pentilla to prepare the annual <br />financial statement, at a cost of $375. Motion carried 5-0. <br />Whittaker suggested the Council consider and discuss what should <br />be included in an auditor's contract before letting the next con- <br />tract. <br />B. AAp <br />Eder re <br />Budget <br />ointments - City Att <br />and <br />commenaea tnat the council review the C <br />time and retain the current firms until <br />neer - <br />consultants at <br />t time. <br />Mottaz suggested, last January, that the Council discuss reappointing <br />Amended the current law firm of Ranum, Raleigh and Marshall.* l_t._Gh4t__t_"e, <br />5/19/81 t-he- 3 -Go�ka i I- i+ber-fr-a-s4e4 f-o-r---a--tl+r� 4ftei}t-l:r -kel,*yw-te- a ec gar t <br />t�r�salz�c�s with tk cam; �s;�lta3}ts . Mottaz requested the Council-: pur- <br />sue the review; and, encouraged periodic review, discussion and <br />proposals of all City consultants. <br />Amended -doe 4-io-t f—avcnt-l-e-re <br />5/19/81 is a }rrabl o-r- r��er�r ;ai h e? altt�nt.- {�i�y' ctt ticji�s o-r <br />C-Gri-c-e-r-n•a-t4+e--e­ert&u-1-t-ai+t,--e-f-t-e-r--wh-ielt-a- <br />dec3.4-'i-0n- -r-ep-1a.-C-GTe}t - -c au-l-d--the4�i- 4)4- <br />